Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Up to 4.2 million veterans may have their guns confiscated by ATF

  1. #1
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139

    Up to 4.2 million veterans may have their guns confiscated by ATF

    "The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee wants Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to explain why a Department of Justice gun ban list has a “mental defective” category consisting almost entirely of names belonging to military veterans and their dependents.

    “It’s disturbing to think that the men and women who dedicated themselves to defending our freedom and values face undue threats to their fundamental Second Amendment rights from the very agency established to serve them,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, said in a statement Wednesday. “A veteran or dependent shouldn’t lose their constitutional rights because they need help with bookkeeping.”


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-mostly-vete/
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    While not mitigating the urgency of the issue, the article is from 15 April 2015.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    I'm an idiot. You even quoted the exact same portion of the article. I really suck at the search function and narrowing down terms. Apologies.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ntal+defective

    Grape you can close or delete.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Out of mere curiosity, what led you to TWT archives so precisely and timely? It is a timely issue with the arming of the National Guard by the governors as they take control of the nations defenses from the incompetent president.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-18-2015 at 04:36 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Multiple conservative outlets on FB have reposted this article today for some reason, including the NRA.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  6. #6
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Multiple conservative outlets on FB have reposted this article today for some reason, including the NRA.
    The NRA posted today labelling it Breaking News. They link to an LA Times article with today's date on it.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...ry.html#page=1
    Advocate freedom please

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    LOL From the linked LA Times article

    Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

    The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

    A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."[my emphasis]
    How in the world will they evaluate intelligence without IQ and Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein nailed that one.

    The 4.2 million are adults with benefits going to "representative payees," and not particularly veterans.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-18-2015 at 06:19 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Not just Vets, but lots of people on Social Security.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...m-owning-guns/
    Last edited by DeSchaine; 07-19-2015 at 05:32 PM.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    Not just Vets, but lots of people on Social Security.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...m-owning-guns/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-19-2015 at 05:42 PM. Reason: emphasis
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    If any of you have been following this - which started up in 2013ish - you would know that it is being beaten back and beaten into the ground over the difference between an administrative decision and a full judicial hearing, with rights to an attorney, to confront witnesses, to have "second" opinions by your own doctors, and the like.

    Further, the VA definition of incompetent to handle finances does not, except for the use of the word "incompetent", match any of the definitions in any of the l;aws that list who is a prohibited person.

    It's a good idea to keep an eye on this rodeo, but the sky is really not falling.

    I'm more concerned with the second Personal Identifying Information data hack which includes my stuff. The last thing I need is some Chinese military intelligence person who has stolen my identity coming to my door insisting that I take it back.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Marine Veteran Brandon Raub Sentenced To Up To 30 Days In Psych Ward Over Facebook Posts
    Oldie but goodie. It is easy, the government will assign to you your mental status...that they deem appropriate.

    The downfall of liberty? The "reasonable man" test.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Oldie but goodie. It is easy, the government will assign to you your mental status...that they deem appropriate. The downfall of liberty? The "reasonable man" test.
    The psychologization of dissent.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Good thing FEMA bought a lot of body bags a few years ago, they will need them.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    I've been exposed to a potential case of this recently. A family member on Social Security had a stroke and was partially disabled both physically and mentally. Her husband continued to manage finances their joint she passed without getting any formal ruling of handing her finances for her. But had a need arisen, I have no doubt he could have readily obtained the necessary rulings; she was no longer competent to handle her own finances.

    However, there was nothing in her post-stroke disability, IMO, that would warrant any loss of RKBA or any other right. Practically (physically), her ability to use a gun was very limited. But she did not pose a risk to herself or others simply by legally owning a gun. She was not violent, was not depressed or suicidal. She simply had lost some physical and mental capabilities. Frankly, the stairs in the home posed a higher risk of injury than a firearm she would have had trouble loading. As a married women in a joint property State, and her husband not having any bars on firearms ownership, what personal property (such as guns) were hers and what were his probably doesn't come up in most cases.

    But I can easily imagine cases where an unmarried person has a guardian appointed to handle finances. What of personal property then? If the person poses no risk to himself or others, why should firearms be treated any differently than any other item? The person should retain full legal right to own these items, and under the legal authority of his financial guardian, to sell them, gift them, or retain them (perhaps as an on-going investment).

    I take comfort in Skidmark's words. I'm also reminded that oft-times these kind of rights-infringing proposals get beat back simply because they come to light and there is a certain amount of uproar.

    Interestingly, nobody seems to be proposing limits on the right to vote simply because someone can't manage his own finances. I'd suggest that in many cases, voting well takes a lot more cognition that does lawful and proper use of a firearm.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Charles,

    You may want to keep quiet about your uncle committing a rash of federal felonies concerning the disbursement and distribution of SSA funds.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148

    Today, from Alzherimer's Ass. converence, Women ... worsen faster than men.

    "At age 65, seemingly healthy women have about a 1 in 6 chance of developing Alzheimer’s during the rest of their lives, compared with a 1 in 11 chance for men. Scientists once thought the disparity was just because women tend to live longer - but there’s increasing agreement that something else makes women more vulnerable."

    https://www.alz.org/aaic/releases_2015/Tues8amET.asp

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...worsen-faster/

    When I find a link to the study I'll post it.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-21-2015 at 06:29 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Charles,

    You may want to keep quiet about your uncle committing a rash of federal felonies concerning the disbursement and distribution of SSA funds.

    stay safe.
    alleged illegal activities must run in the family as this is the same individual who brags about CC'g (by their own admission poorly!!) on private property he knows the property owner has deemed and posted as a GFZ.

    but hey...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Regular Member Da Rat Bastid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    44

    Unhappy

    As a disabled person who:

    A) collects Social Security because of that, and

    B) has a representative payee for those benefits, not even due to any mental condition, but because I hadn't yet gotten around to learning the whole "living within your means" lesson in my late teens, which was during Bush Senior's presidency, before most people even knew that the Internet was a thing,

    I can't help but be scared of this being enacted. Being a Social Security recipient, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with how government bureaucracy works (and I use that last word loosely here). I've got my doubts that, if this blatantly unconstitutional procedure is enacted but later struck down, I would actually be taken off the list of Prohibited Persons.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You may want to keep quiet about your uncle committing a rash of federal felonies concerning the disbursement and distribution of SSA funds.
    What felonies? The SS checks came into the joint account and were spent on joint expenses as they always had been. Lacking a ruling of incompetence, the legal assumption must be that the recipient was competent and was consenting to the spending just as she always had.

    My non-professional observations and beliefs that she could have readily been found to need someone to handle her finances for her had a question ever come up, does not constitute material evidence of any wrongdoing regarding the receipt or use of SSA funds.

    I expect the situation I described is quite common among older couples as one partner or the other loses interest in or ability to make day-to-day decisions, but is carefully, lovingly, and properly cared for by the spouse and other family members without there ever being a need for a formal hearing or ruling on competency.

    And in any event, it was my second cousin, twice removed, rather than an uncle. And I don't expect he is long enough for this world himself to be too worried about anything federal. Caring for a spouse can be very taxing.

    But I do appreciate your concern.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    alleged illegal activities must run in the family as this is the same individual who brags about CC'g (by their own admission poorly!!) on private property he knows the property owner has deemed and posted as a GFZ.
    In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not much interested in engaging you in conversation. Yet you've spent the last several weeks doing your best to get a rise from me. Stop it. You are either engaging in libel, or you are too dense to understand what has been explained to you repeatedly regarding Utah State law.

    CCing into a posted business in Utah is NOT a violation of any law. Period. Further, under State law, a commercial entity has a rather high threshold to clear to get a trespassing violation even if they do formally "trespass" a person.

    76-10-2402, Commercial obstruction, comes into play only if, "the person enters or remains unlawfully on the premises of or in a building of any business with the intent to interfere with the employees, customers, personnel, or operations of a business through any conduct that does not constitute" a more serious offense such as theft, vandalism, etc.

    76-6-206. Criminal trespass has similar restrictions. First of all, a person must be trespassing with intent "to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property" ... or intent "to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or..."is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another."

    Furthermore, under 76-6-206, "It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property."

    Now, I realize that for someone who can't quite figure out how to use proper capitalization, and who refers to violent carjackers as "victims" when they get shot and killed trying to grab an LAC's self-defense firearm, this might actually be difficult to fully comprehend. But as much as it may upset you or your unique view of the universe, no crime is committed in Utah by a person ignoring a "No Guns" sign on a business and otherwise legally carrying his gun. And as much as it may upset you, when law abiding citizens act in self-defense and/or lawful defense of another in Utah, dead violent car jackers don't tend to result in criminal charges nor any successful civil action against the LAC. If Utah law bothers so much in these or any other regards, you are quite free to avoid ever visiting. Your presence will not be missed, I'm sure.

    Beyond all that, while I believe Skid's concerns are sincere, neither he nor you articulated any criminal conduct regarding SSA benefits. I do not believe any crime can be articulated from my description without making some assumptions that I did not actually articulate; and that were not present.

    So get over your hurt feelings, stop defaming me, and stop trying to get a rise out of me. I do not care to engage you in discussion, but do not intend to stand by silently if you are going to lie or even just pass along inaccurate information because you lack the mental ability to know it is inaccurate even after having it explained to you. If you persist in lies in an attempt to elicit further response from me, I'll take it to the moderators.

    I've been civilly silent though petty snideness and snarkiness from you. Defamation and accusations of criminality where there is none crosses the line. Stick to issues and stay away from personality problems you seemingly have with me.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 07-22-2015 at 10:55 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Until such time as Congress amends the Constitution to change the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," anyone attempting to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms makes themselves a suspect and will be treated accordingly.

    I EXPECT all law enforcement officers to hold themselves to high standards, most importantly their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."

    If they fail, it's certainly not my duty to police them. On the other hand, if their failure results in decidedly un-Constitutional behavior towards myself in someone in my charge, I no longer have any confidence that they are who they purport themselves to be, and will treat them precisely like any other impersonator who unlawfully puts on a uniform. They will be detained until 911 dispatch sends units. If at any time I feel my life is in danger, I will not hesitate to use deadly force to defend myself.

    This is not belligerence. I am polite and a consummate professional. I will not, however, allow myself or those in my legal care/custody to come to harm at the hands of someone purporting to be a law enforcement officer while engaging in harmful behavior.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •